|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Chilcot report
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Today marks the day when we finally get to see the results of Sir John Chilcot's enquiry into the Iraq War.
The legacy of that war is still being felt today.
No reporting today can, IMHO, adequately cover the report, which journalists were given 3 hours in advance, to read a document roughly 4 times as long as the bible.
There's an expectation of a binary reaction:
1) Blair is a war criminal
2) It's a whitewash
The substance is likely to be far more complicated and nuanced than that, though.
As the details emerge, this is a space for us to discuss the findings, the methodology and the questions that remain unanswered.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes. I suppose there will be some folks who will think it is a whitewash if it does not indicate there is sufficient cause to indict Tony Blair (a.k.a. as Bliar) as a war criminal.
But I doubt whether too many people will take the time and trouble to read in detail what it says. This is going to be another media event.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
There's an expectation of a binary reaction:
1) Blair is a war criminal
2) It's a whitewash
The substance is likely to be far more complicated and nuanced than that, though.
This.
Obviously feelings run very high on this. And rightly and necessarily so.
However I have found the determination by some to prejudge the report very frustrating. This is not a simple situation. Simplistic answers won't help anyone.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Today marks the day when we finally get to see the results of Sir John Chilcot's enquiry into the Iraq War.
The legacy of that war is still being felt today.
No reporting today can, IMHO, adequately cover the report, which journalists were given 3 hours in advance, to read a document roughly 4 times as long as the bible.
There's an expectation of a binary reaction:
1) Blair is a war criminal
2) It's a whitewash
The substance is likely to be far more complicated and nuanced than that, though.
As the details emerge, this is a space for us to discuss the findings, the methodology and the questions that remain unanswered.
I doubt very much it will be a whitewash. I doubt however that our political leaders (or any political leaders, save Iraqi ones) will end up in the dock. There is however a distinct possibility that some more soldiers may end up there, which will piss off the armed forces community still further.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Stop The War have already got a protest lined up against it, so I'm guessing that they are going to be headed down the "Whitewash" route.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Blair gets a fair slapping during Chilcott's presentation.
quote:
Mr Blair told the Inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree that hindsight is required. The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and Al Qaeda activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.
And plenty more....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Related but tangential question:
Any ideas on how/why Blair and Bush got so chummy over this? I understood Blair and Bill Clinton--two peas in a pod, IMHO, but with somewhat different styles. But Dubya and Blair? It seemed so strange that I wondered if Dubya had something on Blair.
Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Blair gets a fair slapping during Chilcott's presentation.
quote:
Mr Blair told the Inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree that hindsight is required. The risks of internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and Al Qaeda activity in Iraq, were each explicitly identified before the invasion.
And plenty more....
Guardian Live is pretty damning. Whether that makes him a war criminal or a shameless political opportunist is open to debate.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Related but tangential question:
Any ideas on how/why Blair and Bush got so chummy over this? I understood Blair and Bill Clinton--two peas in a pod, IMHO, but with somewhat different styles. But Dubya and Blair? It seemed so strange that I wondered if Dubya had something on Blair.
Thx.
Just the "Special relationship", which for the most part consists of Washington saying "Jump!" and London replying "How high?".
The last Prime Minister to defy that was probably Harold Wilson over British (non-)involvement in Vietname. ry
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Blair has his statement out punctually, as you would expect.
quote:
The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein, I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.
Good luck with that Tony...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Blair has his statement out punctually, as you would expect.
quote:
The report should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein, I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.
Good luck with that Tony...
I am sure he is sincere in what he says, but that leads me to Nye Bevan's memorable assessment of Sir Anthony Eden over Britain's involvement in Suez in 1956.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A lot of journalists are saying that it's not a whitewash, and is pretty damning of many people, except soldiers. 'Much more damning than expected', (Norman Smith, BBC). Will wait to see relatives' reaction, also reaction in Iraq.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I was convinced and said so here at the time, in 'debate' with Alan (Cresswell), that Blair was all but unhinged by a perception of Saddam's response to siege: his killing of hundreds of thousands of children by neglect, up to a million over 10 years.
Which is not agreed at all.
I knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and said so then too. And despite that I fully supported the invasion of Iraq. I had become a liberal interventionist, influenced by Michael Ignatieff and Blair's phenomenal success as a war leader in the 90's. I was that most perverse of creatures for decades before that, a cultic pacifist apologist for God the Killer. The cult lost its grip and I lost the pacifism. But not the apologism. I argued here strongly for MORE military intervention in the light of the Balkans in particular. As a Christian responsibility.
Which overlapped with Blair's and even Bush's motivations I believe.
I have blood on my hands. Others, unlike Jesus'.
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I thought that the report would probably dismiss the more overstated claims made by some opponents of the war, which it did. I also thought that it would be kinder to Mr Blair than I would be inclined to be and to refute some of the points on which I disagreed with the decision, (simply on the grounds that I am not infallible and took less interest in the issue than the Prime Minister of the day and Sir John.) Based on the initial press reports and the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons I'd say that I was clearly wrong on the latter two points. I suspect that the Stop The War Coalition won't be satisfied but I think we can safely say that Mr Blair's rates for after dinner speaking will have to be notched downwards by a couple of noughts. It was always apparent that Mr Blair wished to be remembered by posterity as a significant historical figure. I have a feeling that if Mephistopheles turns up now and offers him the chance to be remembered as "wossisname, the one between Major and Brown" he would happily sign the parchment.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Floreat Robin Cook!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Floreat Robin Cook!
Indeed. He wrote most of Chilcott in his resignation speech.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think it is pretty damning from what I've read so far.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One nice touch about intelligence - one informant was describing stuff that was "remarkably similar to the fictional chemical weapon portrayed in the film The Rock".
This material was later withdrawn, but it seems that nobody told Blair about this. Eh?
http://tinyurl.com/zb45ezd
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Whether that makes him a war criminal or a shameless political opportunist is open to debate.
I thought "shameless political opportunist" was already well established. He sold out the Labour Party support base of ordinary workers and Unions to turn the party into Tory-lite for electoral success.
Of course, it isn't mutually exclusive from "war criminal". No reason he can't be both.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I see that Reg Keys has apparently thoroughly approved of the report, which may count for a lot.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
They can produce all the reports they like but the question will always remain as to what's to be done about it. I'm not surprised at all by its conclusions. I will be surprised if anything at all happens as a result of it. It amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist to a naughty schoolboy. The whole damn thing is rotten to the core.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
They can produce all the reports they like but the question will always remain as to what's to be done about it. I'm not surprised at all by its conclusions. I will be surprised if anything at all happens as a result of it. It amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist to a naughty schoolboy. The whole damn thing is rotten to the core.
I think if Blair (and others) was a 3rd world black leader, he would already be in irons in the Hague, or whatever they put them in. But he ain't, he's a cool rich white guy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Blair is still swinging in his speech at the moment...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One nice touch about intelligence - one informant was describing stuff that was "remarkably similar to the fictional chemical weapon portrayed in the film The Rock".
This material was later withdrawn, but it seems that nobody told Blair about this. Eh?
http://tinyurl.com/zb45ezd
And, they say that Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana was fiction ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was asking around as to what crimes Blair could be charged with. Someone thought 'aggressive war', which was defined as a war crime at Nuremberg, quote, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." (Wiki on 'war of aggression').
But it ain't gonna happen.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Every time I click on the BBC news at the moment, it's Blair telling us how agonizing it was, and how the world is a safer place, and thank you for all the money you've made for me, and I always tell Cherie that you should fry chips twice for the best results. I made that last bit up. Please, someone shut him up.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Every time I click on the BBC news at the moment, it's Blair telling us how agonizing it was, and how the world is a safer place, and thank you for all the money you've made for me, and I always tell Cherie that you should fry chips twice for the best results. I made that last bit up. Please, someone shut him up.
He's still a bit of a barnstormer isn't he?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was asking around as to what crimes Blair could be charged with. Someone thought 'aggressive war', which was defined as a war crime at Nuremberg, quote, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." (Wiki on 'war of aggression').
But it ain't gonna happen.
Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.
In the aftermath of 9/11 Ann Coulter infamously declared that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". How we all laughed. So it was a bit of a shocker when it suddenly became government policy to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to liberal democracy". Notwithstanding the occasional success of military intervention (the Falklands, Kuwait, Kosovo and Sierra Leone) it's not sensible to assume that we can just invade other countries, overthrow their governments and assume that the outcome will be a brief, brisk war, a round of applause from the locals, and the immediate adoption of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. The world really doesn't work like that. But if we lived in a parallel dimension where we actually could have got rid of Saddam and left behind a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Iraq, and if he actually did have stockpiles of WMD, then I find it hard to see what the objections would have been. I think this is different in kind from, say, the sort of thing that Milosevic was up to in the former Yugoslavia although, I can see that this is pretty scant consolation from the point of view of the dead, dispossesed, maimed and bereaved.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace
Ticked.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.
There's the rub, Callan. I'm sure that, at the time, intelligence communities around the world did believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The question mark was over present capability to deliver. Chilcot says this threat was "presented with certainty that was not justified". Why was that done?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Saddam Hussein did have some unpleasant weaponry ... at one time. But they'd degraded by the time the sanctions had time to bite and his developing 'super-gun' capacity (think Sheffield Forgemasters and similar) was destroyed during the First Gulf War.
I'm not sure to what extent the intelligence services were convinced that they still had some capacity - but claims that they could have struck at us within '45 minutes' were clearly way, way, way wide of the mark.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Related but tangential question:
Any ideas on how/why Blair and Bush got so chummy over this? I understood Blair and Bill Clinton--two peas in a pod, IMHO, but with somewhat different styles. But Dubya and Blair? It seemed so strange that I wondered if Dubya had something on Blair.
Thx.
Bill Clinton was rumoured at the time to have advised Blair to hug Bush close. Presumably that is what TB though he was doing.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace
Ticked.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.
There's the rub, Callan. I'm sure that, at the time, intelligence communities around the world did believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The question mark was over present capability to deliver. Chilcot says this threat was "presented with certainty that was not justified". Why was that done?
My guess would be a) groupthink and b) confirmation bias.
Blair had come to the conclusion that, to be electable, the Labour Party had to be Atlanticist. No problem with that, I'm an Atlanticist myself. But in this instance it was the wrong position to take. The US Government was engaged in a reckless and catastrophic gamble to remake the Middle East. I think that Blair was not inclined to take seriously evidence that this was the case because it would have forced him to act in a way that was damaging. I don't mean by this he consciously went down this route. I think that everything that he has said on the subject of his own sincerity since 2003 was entirely true.
Years ago I had a conversation with a gentleman whose job was in witness protection. Often the protected witness was someone who had been arrested for some serious crime or other and had decided to shop his erstwhile mates in exchange for a reduced sentence. Obviously, you can't just protect them, you have to protect the wife/ girlfriend or kids. It is amazing, apparently, how many of the wives/ girlfriends of villains are quite happy to live in an expensive five bedroomed house, with two gleaming new cars sitting in the driveway and expensive foreign holidays despite the fact that hubby - let us call him George - ostensibly, as a mid-level sales job or no discernible means of support at all. They were quite sincere when they were aghast to discover that George was working for the local Mr Big but they had avoided thinking about any of the evidence that might point to George not being quite on the level.
It is sometimes alleged that Mr Blair lied to the British people. I don't think that is true in the sense that he stood up and knowingly told untruths. Rather, I think that he deceived the British people only having first deceived himself. Can you imagine what would have happened if he had taken a similar line to that of M. Chirac? The Tories and the popular press would have hounded him. Anti-American! Weak on Defence! Guacamole Eating Surrender Monkeys! Not that! Never that! Shoulder to shoulder! Every bit of evidence for WMD greeted with hallelujahs. Every bit against dismissed as unreliable. My George isn't a wrong un! He works hard! I'm entitled to my nice life and my big house and my trips to the States! You bugger off with your innuendo and your nasty suspicions! Of course, everything is going to be all right!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
It is sometimes alleged that Mr Blair lied to the British people. I don't think that is true in the sense that he stood up and knowingly told untruths. Rather, I think that he deceived the British people only having first deceived himself.
You didn't read that in the report though, did you. There's lots of talk of 'misleading' and of being 'misled' which I think is polite speak for 'we were bloody well lied to'.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Blair keeps saying that he acted in good faith. This seems meaningless to me - probably most terrorists would say the same, in the sense that they believe they are acting for the best. So what?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
It is sometimes alleged that Mr Blair lied to the British people. I don't think that is true in the sense that he stood up and knowingly told untruths. Rather, I think that he deceived the British people only having first deceived himself.
You didn't read that in the report though, did you. There's lots of talk of 'misleading' and of being 'misled' which I think is polite speak for 'we were bloody well lied to'.
I haven't, I confess, read the Chilcot report from cover to cover*. If you have I defer to your opinion. But based on what I have read and seen so far, I really don't think that Chilcot is saying that Blair knew that Saddam Hussein was not in possession of WMDs and nonetheless told deliberate untruths. My impression is that "misled" meant that vastly greater weight was placed upon the evidence than it could reasonably bear.
*As it happens I'm half way through volume 1 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall so cut me some slack here!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Blair keeps saying that he acted in good faith. This seems meaningless to me - probably most terrorists would say the same, in the sense that they believe they are acting for the best. So what?
In that case he has deceived himself, and that is at the root of all the worst evil in the world. Once powerful people can deceive themselves they can deceive and manipulate. And they do, without mercy and forethought.
eta: Callan, that is probably most apposite reading!
[ 06. July 2016, 17:11: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Sioni Sais , your post makes me ask some things.
Blair had a false belief, and admits to same. Was he entitled to have a false belief? At what point are people entitled to have false beliefs and at what point do we cite them for willful blindness?
I am influenced by Canadian media reports today which - not gloatingly, but I was led to consider gloating by the tone - remind us that Canada refused to participate in the attack on Iraq. I was also remembering the mocking and disparaging of France "freedom fries" when they also refused to participate. Obviously some countries did not have the same false belief. Why?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that Blair's theatrical performance will enrage people. Do we really want to know how agonized he has been, and how full of contrition he is? Maybe some people find that satisfying, but I was just watching a relative on TV who said that he was a terrorist. His unctuousness is truly revolting, when you think of the thousands killed, and it is still going on. Damn him to hell, if such a place existed.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
One has to marvel at the honesty of Bush/Blair in declaring no chemical shit was found. I mean how easy would have been, midst the fog of war, to plant a stash of drums in the sand and shout--- Hey, lookity what we got here !
The extent of the insurgency, which continues to the present day, is the overwhelming factor that has made March 03 the historical and monumental cock up it will always be remembered for.
Still, for anyone seeking a silver lining, the West has nevertheless succeeded in puppet governing S. Iraq and drinking it's crude. Some conscious-less satisfaction to be drawn there?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
John Simpson on BBC News was interesting, arguing that the invasion and its sequelae, had a corrosive effect on politics in the UK, increasing cynicism and dislike towards politicians. He even mentioned Brexit as one of the consequences, impossible to prove, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Those of you who like reading can access the Chilcot report here.
Currently I'm wading my way through the Executive Summary.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.
I'm inclined to remember that he was always adept at tuning the emotion he displayed to fit the moment. I'm not convinced we've ever seen a genuine emotion from Blair on-camera unless it happened to coincide with what he thought was politically expedient at the time. Blair, if nothing else, was a master manipulator.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There was a squaddie at the time, interviewed on the Beeb, tooled up with an HMG, in a sandbagged checkpoint, never taking his slitty eyes off the road, who said, "We came out here and kicked something up the arse and it turned round and bit us.".
It hasn't let go yet.
So, how should we have done that 'better' with hindsight? That's all Blair seems to acknowledge. Even if he knew the intel was crap, which I accept that he didn't (I didn't accept that at the time and didn't care that there were NO WMDs), how would he have brought down Saddam, the 'real prize' and returned Iraq to its neo-Babylonian if not Edenic golden age?
Little things like treat the Iraqi army and establishment as a resource, i.e. with respect?
The one good thing that came out of this two trillion dollar, at least 155,000 dead nightmare that goes on and on in Ankara and Raqqa and Paris and Brussels and Baghdad, is Chris Rock's joke "You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, ... France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war ...".
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
One has to marvel at the honesty of Bush/Blair in declaring no chemical shit was found. I mean how easy would have been, midst the fog of war, to plant a stash of drums in the sand and shout--- Hey, lookity what we got here !
I think pretty difficult. Unless you're prepared to kill the people who planted the stash and to control the identification of the chemicals or other weapons. Forensic analysis would show the source.
So no, don't marvel at their honesty when they had no choice. Marvel instead at the moral and ethical failure that led them to justify this attack. Which we know was a long term plan. The information about weapons were merely a pretext for a plan they had wanted to implement.
I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I think it was fairly obvious Bush was going into Iraq on his own if needs be. Blair probably saw himself as a travelling companion and moderator.
Britain only suffered a very small number of casualties compared to the US. Even if we had avoided involvement there is no saying we would have been spared the consequential terror attacks anymore than France who kept out.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
France has treated Muslims like shit in its own way for quite some time. A better comparison would be Germany that has been broadly welcoming of its Muslim immigrant population.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.
I'm inclined to remember that he was always adept at tuning the emotion he displayed to fit the moment. I'm not convinced we've ever seen a genuine emotion from Blair on-camera unless it happened to coincide with what he thought was politically expedient at the time. Blair, if nothing else, was a master manipulator.
Two things. Firstly, if you are a politician you can always console yourself that your critics are being unfair. If, on the other hand, an eminent person with no axe to grind cooly assess the pros and cons of one of your more questionable decisions and solemnly concludes that you screwed the pooch and this is all over the media it's going to feel like a punch in the guts. It's like the episode of Blackadder when Edmund decides to do in the King's annoying Scottish friend in the play 'Death of a Scotsman'. "Don't worry, there won't be much acting involved.
Secondly, this is the Revenge Of Gordon. It was Brown who set up the enquiry, Brown who decided the Terms of Reference and Brown who appointed Sir John Chilcot. There's an episode of 'Yes Prime Minister' when Jim Hacker wants someone responsible for a leak to go to prison. "How will you manage that' asks Sir Humphrey.
"Little drinky with the judge?" suggests Hacker.
"Impossible!" cries Sir Humphrey "The independence of the judiciary is a key part of the constitution".
Hacker is unimpressed by this display of moral rectitude. "How then?"
Sir Humphrey smiles: "You get the Lord Chancellor to appoint a judge with extremely firm views on breaches of the Official Secrets Act".
This is how the establishment works. If you want to bring down Blair's legacy, you don't get Damian McBride to tell journalists horrible things about Blair. You set up an enquiry, ensure that the terms of reference are sufficiently wide ranging and put in charge someone of complete moral rectitude who disapproves of wishful thinking and blithering incompetence. It's been a long wait but in the Tony/ Gordon wars it is Gordon who is, tonight, raising a cheerful glass and cackling to himself, whilst Tony pours himself another stiff measure and tells Cherie for the 273rd time that this is all Bloody Gordon's fault. That's got to sting.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
